VHDL language of choice?

Folks,
I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
materials on how to use it.
Thanks,
-HT

Advertisements

Advertisements

On 4 Apr 2005 00:14:45 -0700, "Neo" <> wrote:
>verilog is widely prevalent in asic design world and is the language of
>choice. But in FPGA design community both are widely used.

It isn't that simple; there are many serious commercial ASIC/custom
outfits that use VHDL.

Sadly, though, it is true that VHDL simply doesn't seem to have the
momentum that Verilog has. I know that Jim Lewis and all the
great people involved in VHDL-200x are working hard to rectify
that, but in the last analysis the only sensible approach for
an individual engineer is: become bilingual in VHDL and Verilog.
--
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

Herb T wrote:
> Folks,
> I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
> were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
> was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
> using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
> verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
> personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
> materials on how to use it.

I was somewhat surprised when I received Xilinx EDK, and all the cores
included with it (numbering 50-75 I would say) were written in VHDL. I
was even more surprised when I discovered that all the bit vectors were
written as std_logic_vector(0 to n) (instead of downto)!

> I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
> were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
> was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
> using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
> verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
> personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
> materials on how to use it.

Most of the american companies use Verilog while in Europe VHDL is common.

I prefer VHDL, too, because
* it is strongly typed and typing errors, that did not lead to syntax
errors are detected more often
* it avoids all these ugly cases mentioned in "verilog coding styles,
that kill" (Clifford Cummingshttp://www.sunburst-design.com/papers/CummingsSNUG2000SJ_NBA.pdf )
* it protects better from writing to one signal from different processes
* signed / unsigned arithmetics are defined more preceisely (with the
disadvantage of having all these type conversions)
* handling of multi-dimensional vectors is possible and handling of
two-dimensional vectors is much easier
* generic parameters and generate statements are easier to use than
Verilog parameters and defines
* finally: VHDL code it better human-readable - IMHO ;-)

Herb,
The statistics I heard was that in 2001 VHDL had
60% of the FPGA market. Verilog had 15% of the
FPGA market and the remaining 25% went to other
entry methods. Hence the early FPGA tool development
and FPGA model development favored VHDL.

With the a large portion of the market shifting from
ASIC to FPGA I am sure the market share has changed, but
that does not change the pre-existing intellectual
property for FPGAs being developed in VHDL.

The historic opposite happened with Verilog in the
ASIC market. Verilog was first to have a gate level
netlist, and hence, became a significant solution for
the ASIC market.

All marketing statistics I have seen where the Verilog
crowd claims to have market share are based on EDA tool
sales, where the ASIC tools cost >>> the FPGA tools, and
hence, showed that more $$$ were spent on Verilog tools.
This is a significant measure for EDA tool vendors as it
indicates where there is money to be made. It was never
a measure of users, although some would like to convince
you it is. Because of this, many emphatically believe that
Verilog has a significant lead in user adoption. It is the
difference of looking at numbers rather than looking at data.

There is an on-going revision of VHDL in progress. It is
adding a number of significant features (such as uncostrained
arrays of arrays - very useful in parameterized models),
generics on packages, packages for fixed and floating
point, integration of PSL, and language simplification
(case and if statements). In the area of math, VHDL will
have an advantage over Verilog/System Verilog as they don't
have their own solution for these fixed and floating point.
For more details see the papers page at:http://www.synthworks.com/papers

In the next revision (immediately following this one) we will
be adding enhanced verification features, similar to what
System Verilog has done (such as constrained random). We will
also be using the new features of the language (specifically
generics on packages) to write packages that implement advanced
verification data structures (such as queues, FIFOS, and
memories).

> Folks,
> I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
> were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
> was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
> using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
> verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
> personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
> materials on how to use it.
> Thanks,
> -HT
>

In article <>,
Jim Lewis <> wrote:
>
>There is an on-going revision of VHDL in progress. It is
>adding a number of significant features (such as uncostrained
>arrays of arrays - very useful in parameterized models),
>generics on packages, packages for fixed and floating
>point, integration of PSL, and language simplification
>(case and if statements). In the area of math, VHDL will
>have an advantage over Verilog/System Verilog as they don't
>have their own solution for these fixed and floating point.
>For more details see the papers page at:
>http://www.synthworks.com/papers
>
>In the next revision (immediately following this one) we will
>be adding enhanced verification features, similar to what
>System Verilog has done (such as constrained random). We will
>also be using the new features of the language (specifically
>generics on packages) to write packages that implement advanced
>verification data structures (such as queues, FIFOS, and
>memories).
>

Any changes planned for the scope of user defined attributes? As in will
they be accessable outside of the package they're defined in? (not being
able to do this now tends to make them not very useful). Allowing user
defined attributes on types to be accessable outside of the package
they're defined in, for example, would seem to move VHDL in a more OO
direction (which should be a good thing

As far as VHDL vs. Verilog popularity goes: comp.lang.vhdl seems to get
consistently more traffic then comp.lang.verilog.

> In article <>,
> Jim Lewis <> wrote:
>
>>There is an on-going revision of VHDL in progress. It is
>>adding a number of significant features (such as uncostrained
>>arrays of arrays - very useful in parameterized models),
>>generics on packages, packages for fixed and floating
>>point, integration of PSL, and language simplification
>>(case and if statements). In the area of math, VHDL will
>>have an advantage over Verilog/System Verilog as they don't
>>have their own solution for these fixed and floating point.
>>For more details see the papers page at:
>>http://www.synthworks.com/papers
>>
>>In the next revision (immediately following this one) we will
>>be adding enhanced verification features, similar to what
>>System Verilog has done (such as constrained random). We will
>>also be using the new features of the language (specifically
>>generics on packages) to write packages that implement advanced
>>verification data structures (such as queues, FIFOS, and
>>memories).
>>
>
>
> Any changes planned for the scope of user defined attributes? As in will
> they be accessable outside of the package they're defined in? (not being
> able to do this now tends to make them not very useful). Allowing user
> defined attributes on types to be accessable outside of the package
> they're defined in, for example, would seem to move VHDL in a more OO
> direction (which should be a good thing
>
> As far as VHDL vs. Verilog popularity goes: comp.lang.vhdl seems to get
> consistently more traffic then comp.lang.verilog.
>
> Phil

Herb T wrote:
> Folks,
> I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
> were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
> was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
> using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
> verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
> personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
> materials on how to use it.

This is a myth prepuated by some people and companies that typically
have a vested interest in Verilog or system Verilog.

I have real data from Dataquest that says VHDL is about 50/50 with
Verilog. Verilog has the advantage in ASIC space, and VHDL in FPGA
space. Note that there are MANY more FPGAs being designed than ASICs,
however ASICs are worth much more to the EDA companies than FPGAs are.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 15:33:53 GMT, David Bishop <>
wrote:
>Herb T wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>> I was talking to some electronics buffs on a chat channel, and they
>> were telling me that only Universities and DOD uses VHDL. I thought it
>> was hogwash, but wanted to find out if many commercial companies are
>> using the language earnestly. The resident HDL expert was saying
>> verilog is the language of choice these days. Is that true? I
>> personally prefer VHDL because the I already have too many reference
>> materials on how to use it.
>
>This is a myth prepuated by some people and companies that typically
>have a vested interest in Verilog or system Verilog.
>
>I have real data from Dataquest that says VHDL is about 50/50 with
>Verilog. Verilog has the advantage in ASIC space, and VHDL in FPGA
>space. Note that there are MANY more FPGAs being designed than ASICs,
>however ASICs are worth much more to the EDA companies than FPGAs are.

I have another piece of real data. If you go to dice and search for
VHDL and Verilog keywords across US and In Bay Area/Silicon Valley
Metro areas, you get almost even numbers in whole US and twice as many
Verilog related jobs in the Bay Area.Monster gives similar results
(320/304 for Verilog/VHDL) if you do a generic search and (140/80 in
Northern California). This seems to correlate with your Dataquest data
as Bay Area is heavily into ASICs and the distribution of FPGAs would
be more even across US.

The problem with this method is that there are some issues that the
language controllers are simply not willing to address.

Foremost among these, IMO, is the issue of a built-in pre-processor.
Nearly every person I have encountered who is just learning VHDL, but
has experience with another language, asks: Why is there no
pre-processor/macro capability?

From the very beginning (VHDL'87), it has been stated that the
designers don't want a pre-processor but that if you really feel the
need for one, there are many options available as stand-alone tools.
While this is indeed true, use of a 3rd party pre-processor results in
*non-standard* and *non-portable* code.

There are also those who say that you don't need a pre-processor because
there are other methods built into the language that do the same thing.
This is true in many cases but use of these methods almost always
results in far more complex (hard to maintain) code and/or an explosion
in the number of lines of total code.

Then there are the issues that, I believe (perhaps incorrectly), can't
(or shouldn't) be addressed by any solution other than a pre-processor.
One of the most common issues is having optional ports in an entity
declaration.

Finally, there is the whole issue of compiler directives. This has been
"solved" by defining special "comments" that operate as directives. The
logical place for these directives, IMO, is as pre-processor directives.
Instead, we have what can only be described as a "hack"; these special
comments. I wonder how many other people have had problems with
inadvertent invocation of a directive because of an unfortunately-worded
comment?

Tim Hubberstey wrote:
> Foremost among these, IMO, is the issue of a built-in pre-processor.
> Nearly every person I have encountered who is just learning VHDL, but
> has experience with another language, asks: Why is there no
> pre-processor/macro capability?

Hi Tim,

I came from a hardware background and found
it odd when first maintaining a C program that I had to
wade through a nest of #ifndefs and hack
some #defines to get the options right.
Maintaining the *almost* C-like macros
can also be challenging for a bit bouncer.
> Then there are the issues that, I believe (perhaps incorrectly), can't
> (or shouldn't) be addressed by any solution other than a pre-processor.
> One of the most common issues is having optional ports in an entity
> declaration.

If it's my code, I am inclined to just edit in the change
and use version control to dig it up if I ever have to.
If it's an untouchable entity, I can make a wrapper
in about a minute.
> Finally, there is the whole issue of compiler directives.

I prefer to keep my code free of directives and
make those settings in the back-end files.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:50:17 -0700, Mike Treseler
<> wrote:
>Tim Hubberstey wrote:
>
>> Foremost among these, IMO, is the issue of a built-in pre-processor.
>> Nearly every person I have encountered who is just learning VHDL, but
>> has experience with another language, asks: Why is there no
>> pre-processor/macro capability?
>
>Hi Tim,
>
>I came from a hardware background and found
>it odd when first maintaining a C program that I had to
>wade through a nest of #ifndefs and hack
>some #defines to get the options right.
>Maintaining the *almost* C-like macros
>can also be challenging for a bit bouncer.

I came to C from a more formal software background (ALGOL-W, then
Modula-2 and a very clean OO language), and found much the same thing,
plus the non-referentially-transparent nature of C style pre-processing
makes it virtually unusable except for trivial hacks.

Even then it leads to pretty unstable systems. Part of the problem is
that it's untestable, or at least untested by any compiler system I
know; only the processed code undergoes syntax checking (does anyone
know of a pre-compiler that traverses every branch and reports on errors
in the currently unreachable ones?), and that has several interesting
ways of generating (or at the very least) obscuring errors.

Some of its common uses are to overcome problems in C that shouldn't be
there in the first place, and VHDL doesn't have anyway. Such as the lack
of a proper import mechanism (package/library/use in VHDL;
FROM ... IMPORT in Modula-2).

I for one would be very unhappy about adding ways of introducing so many
bugs into VHDL, and the only way to avoid it would be a much more
rigorous and heavyweight approach than the C pre-processor.

> Foremost among these, IMO, is the issue of a built-in pre-processor.
> Nearly every person I have encountered who is just learning VHDL, but
> has experience with another language, asks: Why is there no
> pre-processor/macro capability?
>
> From the very beginning (VHDL'87), it has been stated that the
> designers don't want a pre-processor ...

Do we need a preprocessor, if something like the generate statements
would be extended to the signal declaration and to the entity? Such a
solution would offer configuration using one idea - not two like the
parameter and defines in Verilog.

>> * finally: VHDL code it better human-readable - IMHO ;-)
> I used to think that vhdl would be more readable than verilog, but I've
> seen too much vhdl code that looks like this:
>
> x := std_logic_vector(to_unsigned((to_integer(unsigned(z1)) +
> to_integer(unsigned(z2))), 9));
....
> which I *think* is meant to do the same thing as this nice verilog
> code:
>
> x = z1 + z2;

Yes - I agree, this is the point, where VHDL is not well readable, but
remember two things:
* It is well-defined if signed or unsigned arithmetics are used (as long
as you use IEEE.Numeric_std.ALL). For addition you don't care about
this, but for a comparison it is important.
* How many of these constructs do you have in a typical design? O.k. -
quite a lot if you do DSP arithmetics, but normally these things are
rare. (I often try to re-use adders as they have a speed impact and
are area-expensive. Therefore 5 such things in the whole design is a
big number.)

And finally: It is my personal opinion, that it is better readable. ;-)
It started learing VHDL with only little knowledge about the C syntax.
Now, as I have learned C, Verilog is much more readable, but still my
opinion is the same. When I do Verilog I code it like VHDL and it looks
much better than in examples. But again: IMHO!

I guess we (at work) are not the only ones that have made a package
with a bunch of typecasting functions to reduce this problem as much
as possible. With our 'type_conv' package the above would look like:

x := to_slv(to_uns(z1) + to_uns(z2), 9);

Which is a reasonable compromise. But I concur with the general
comment about VHDL's verbosity
> And finally: It is my personal opinion, that it is better
> readable. ;-)

IMHO, it ain't.
> It started learing VHDL with only little knowledge about the C
> syntax. Now, as I have learned C, Verilog is much more readable, but
> still my opinion is the same. When I do Verilog I code it like VHDL
> and it looks much better than in examples. But again: IMHO!

I learned C first, then Verilog, and then VHDL.

I've learned to loathe all of them for their individual shortcomings.

I think it was Dave Bishop who said, when asked about the difference
between Verilog and VHDL:

Verilog was designed by a bunch of hardware guys who didn't know a
thing about designing software. We had to beat on it to make it work.

VHDL was designed by a bunch of software guys who didn't know a thing
about designing hardware. We had to beat on it to make it work.

USUALLY that's a warning that you (or the code's writer) hasn't thought
through the design properly.

If he had defined x and y as type unsigned, he could have written
something like
> x = z1 + z2;

x := z1 + z2;
-- clear enough?
> y = x[7:0] + x[8];

// Was the length mismatch deliberate or is it cover for an obscure bug?
// How do unequal-length operands get handled?
// Did it sign extend or zero fill the shorter one?
// If it extends the shorter operand, can I trust it to flag length
// mismatches between the expression and the assignment variable?

y := x(7 downto 0) + "0000000"&x(8);
-- Clear and precise.
-- Yes there are better ways to extend the shorter operand.
-- Doesn't necessarily do the same as the Verilog code because
-- there are a lot of assumptions in the translation...

The VHDL version has the advantage over the Verilog code that the
operand length mismatch was obviously deliberate and handled in a
defined manner, and not an obscure bug waiting to happen.

Now there are reasons for reverting to std_logic_vector at the physical
ports of a chip, but the ":=" form of assignment tells me x and y are
variables inside a process, so that can't matter here!

Of course the above assumes he is using "numeric_std" and not the
non-standard "std_logic_arith" library, whouch would IMO be another
warning of a poorly thought out design.
>Some vhdl proponents believe that readability is synonymous with
>verbosity.

And some don't. But this VHDL proponent believes that the precision is
worth _some_ excessive verbosity, to ensure that the code actually does
what it says it does.

Brian Drummond wrote:
> If he had defined x and y as type unsigned, he could have written
> something like
> x := z1 + z2;
> y := x(7 downto 0) + "0000000"&x(8);
> Now there are reasons for reverting to std_logic_vector at the physical
> ports of a chip, but the ":=" form of assignment tells me x and y are
> variables inside a process, so that can't matter here!

Well said.
Thanks for the posting.

Conversion between
std_logic_vector and unsigned
is a simple cast on the
edge assignments.

Most designs have 10 times
more process register bits
than pins on the device.

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!